Debates of March 22nd, 2018

Opposition Motion—National Security Advisor to the Prime Minister

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will remind the member of how I started my speech and we will talk about consistency. “Being able to ask questions is essential in a democracy, even in difficult situations—especially in difficult situations.” Those were the words of the Prime Minister.

We are asking questions on national security, not because of a story in a newspaper that was speculation but because of a story planted by the Prime Minister. He sent Mr. Jean, whom I have said I have great respect for. I remember as a cabinet minister seeing Mr. Fadden, our national security adviser to Prime Minister Harper, being a sage counsel to the prime minister. We never saw him doing press conferences. We never saw him meeting with a group of journalists and saying, “Listen, here is really what happened”, because that is not the role of the national security adviser.

In fact, the Prime Minister has undermined that position and if we do not get what we want today Mr. Jean should resign, not because of his actions but because of the Prime Minister. Therefore, who is sullying the civil service? It is the Prime Minister.

That member can yell and scream, but he knows in his heart of hearts that we are right because what we are asking for is reasonable. The same briefing and the same ability to ask Mr. Jean questions that the Prime Minister allowed members of the media to have, MPs and Canadians deserve to have.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal members have repeatedly attacked Conservative and NDP opposition members who want to talk to a public servant.

I would like to know if my colleague thinks there is anything wrong with us wanting to talk to public servants, especially since they are non-partisan and more likely to give us real answers. It seems to me that we should be able to talk to as many public servants as we think we need to hear from. I think it is perfectly fine for the opposition to ask them for input into certain committee studies.

Given that my colleague was once a minister, does he see anything wrong with an opposition member wanting to talk to a public servant?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I agree with her.

It is quite regular for committees of Parliament to call not just Canadians but seniors members of the government, senior officials. Just this week, I asked senior officials from immigration and citizenship questions.

I am sad to inform the House that the cover-up continues. Liberal members, likely whipped by the Prime Minister's Office, just turned down at the public safety committee the request to have Mr. Jean appear, again. They continue to cover-up our ability to find out which story is true, in fact, which Liberal story is true. The Liberal story from Jaspal Atwal and the MP for Surrey Centre, their story is one alternative theory, that the invitation came from Mr. Atwal to the MP for Surrey Centre who sent it to the Prime Minister's Office. We saw the pictures of Mr. Atwal.

The other theory from the Prime Minister's Office, through his adviser, is that the Indian government somehow did this. It is beyond the pale. It is ridiculous. Are we asking for a royal commission on this? No, we are just asking for answers. We are just asking for the official the Prime Minister allowed, actually encouraged, to speak to the media, to answer our questions. It is very reasonable. If we do not get it, with the accountability rhetoric we hear from these guys all the time, we will be talking about this late tonight.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when the government came to office, I clearly remember it saying it was going to do things differently and that it was going to respect Parliament. When we heard about the media getting a briefing that the government will not allow parliamentarians to get, it was completely offensive. Clearly, we are looking forward to the Speaker's ruling in terms of a possible breach of our privilege.

Is my colleague living up to the standards he told Canadians he would live up to in terms of respect for Parliament, or is this simply another fail?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is the biggest diplomatic fail the Canadian government has ever seen. World headlines have been written about it. As I said, a “moving train wreck” was the description, I think, by the Washington Post. If that is what the Liberals believe “Canada is back” means, we want to go back to going back, because we are embarrassed by this. The Indo-Canadian community is also embarrassed by this, as is the Sikh community. We know what happened in the 1980s is a very sad chapter and should never be glorified, but we know that is not the case today.

Why is this being talked about? It is because of that Prime Minister and a trip entirely about domestic politics. I will leave it there, because I am hoping to get another question from this side. I am hoping the people watching at home and the folks in the gallery see that our request is reasonable. We want to talk to somebody who the Prime Minister asked to talk to the media.

The word “Parliament” is related to the French word for “talk”.

We are supposed to talk here and in our committees, and for us to do our job we have to be given information. We have to be given access to officials and documents. The Liberals are impeding our ability to parler and to be strong MPs. We have heard excellent representations from this side, and rhetoric, vitriol, and obfuscation from that side. I hope Canadians are seeing sunny ways is nothing but a slogan.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of talking, let us talk about the media. I would like to talk about a March 14 article in La Presse.

The High Commissioner of India in Canada and the High Commissioner of Canada in India took part in a Montreal Council on Foreign Relations conference, or MCFR, and I was there.

Here is what was said, according to the papers: “The Prime Minister's visit to India was very important.... However, it ended up in the news for the wrong reasons”.

They also talked about strengthening and expanding trade ties. As I am sure you know, India is a Commonwealth country and a democracy. People there speak English. There is a lot to be done in terms of economic ties, and I would like to hear your thoughts on that.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I would like to remind members to direct their questions through the Speaker and not directly to other members.

The hon. member for Durham.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. Once again, I agree.

India is a very strong and important partner. It is a Commonwealth nation. It is the world's largest democracy. That is why it is such an insult for the Prime Minister of Canada to be suggesting a conspiracy theory when none exists. Mr. Atwal himself said he asked. He is not an agent of the Indian government. The MP for Surrey Centre is not an agent of the Indian government. What is the Prime Minister saying?

That member should use the passion she has shown and her knowledge of the file at her next caucus meeting with the Prime Minister to say, “Stop it, sir. Give Parliament the right to question Mr. Jean.”

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the answer with respect to the invitation is already very clear. In fact, the invitation should never have been sent, and once discovered, it was immediately rescinded.

Another point that needs to be noted is that this government has great confidence in the security and diplomatic advisers to the government who always act in an impartial manner and always in the best interests of Canadians.

The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness was given a strong mandate with respect to national security. Bill C-59 is a focal point of that mandate. It was drafted following unprecedented national public consultation. Through an online questionnaire, town halls, social media engagement and more, the consultations heard tens of thousands of views, which Public Safety Canada and Department of Justice collected, documented, and analyzed.

As members know, the standing committee held numerous meetings of its own on the national security topic, and I thank members here for their input on this priority issue.

Citizens, community leaders, experts from a broad spectrum of the security field, academics, and parliamentarians alike can see their views reflected in Bill C-59. One of its core themes is central to today's debate, enhancing accountability.

The proposed creation of an intelligence commissioner along with a national security and intelligence review agency would complement the work of the newly established National Security Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians. I am pleased to say that the latter committee is now in place. The intent of its creation has always been to protect Canadians, and to safeguard our values and freedoms.

Let me turn to the recent trip to India, and the important things that were accomplished during that visit.

India, as has been noted, is one of the fastest growing economies in the world, making it a market of enormous potential. It is already the world's seventh largest economy, and projections are showing that it would be the third largest by 2030, barely more than a decade from now.

For these reasons and others, India is a priority market for Canada. It is Canada's seventh largest export market and 14th largest for imports. In 2017, two-way trade of goods between Canada and India totalled nearly $8.4 billion, almost double the amount we traded a decade ago. More than 1,000 Canadian companies and educational institutions are currently doing business in India, and 400 actually have a physical presence in the Indian market.

Our service exports have grown significantly over the last five years. Canada's institutional investments, especially those made by our largest pension funds, have also been growing rapidly, and are now estimated to exceed $15 billion.

There is so much more we could do. Exports to India totalling $4.2 billion represent less than 1% of Canada's total exports worldwide. In today's ever-changing connected global economy, Canada can only prosper by expanding markets for its companies.

True success in building strong and lasting commercial relationships demands sustained effort and long-term commitment from all stakeholders, whether government, business, or civil society, using a framework of formal structures and informal networks, or a new generation of economic agreements and extensive people-to-people links. This is all the more true when it comes to developing a mutually beneficial commercial relationship with an emerging economic power such as India.

During the recent visit to India, the Prime Minister led a range of efforts to expand and diversify bilateral economic and commercial relations and promote Canadian interests.

The strengthening of the government-to-government commercial framework was demonstrated through the conclusion of several MOUs and co-operation agreements, with significant progress being made on many others. These covered areas as wide-ranging as civil nuclear science and technology, education, audiovisual co-production, information technology, intellectual property, and even sports.

The Prime Minister also met with top Indian business and political leaders, including not only the leader of the federal government, Prime Minister Modi, but also the chief ministers of the states of Gujarat, Maharashtra, and Punjab. These states are populous, enjoy a large degree of autonomy, are immensely influential economically, and buy large quantities of Canadian products and services.

The Prime Minister interacted with hundreds of Indian and Canadian business leaders through his participation in business-focused round tables and forums. At every opportunity he encouraged them to continue to explore all avenues for increasing trade and investment between our countries.

During his meeting with Prime Minister Modi, the Prime Minister secured a commitment from India to work closely with Canada on finalizing an arrangement before the end of this year, to enable the continued exports of Canadian pulses to that country. As the world's largest exporter of pulses, Canada plays a critical role in providing India with a long-term supply of this very important dietary staple.

Additionally, the Prime Minister announced commitments from businesses, worth more than $1 billion, which will help to expand both of our economies. These included a commitment from Indian companies to invest close to $250 million in Canada, leading to the creation of more than 5,800 good, well-paying middle-class jobs for Canadians. These investments are made by global innovation leaders who have confidence in Canada and understand the long-term advantages of doing business here.

There was a commitment from Canadian companies to invest close to $750 million in India. As is often the case with Canadian investments in India, a significant portion of this amount will go toward large projects aimed at earning long-term, stable income for Canadian investors and pensioners. In addition to the increase in direct company investment, the overall level of investment from Canada's institutional investors and largest public pension funds has surged in recent years, further demonstrating the wealth of opportunities that exist in India.

There was a commitment to provide opportunities in business for women. Reflecting one of the imperatives found in budget 2018, Canada and India will work together on initiatives that help women in both countries build thriving businesses by providing new access to funding, talent, mentorship, and potential customers.

There was an agreement to increase the level of creative collaboration between Canada and India. The cultural sector has huge potential. It will create good jobs in the creative sector, among other ways, and potentially help grow Canada's film industry.

There was an agreement to increase people-to-people ties even faster through education. India is Canada's second largest source of international students, with an estimated 124,000 holding a valid study permit for six months or more at the end of 2017.

Canadian universities and colleges are very active in India, and increased collaboration in education stimulates increased people-to-people ties, encourages joint research and development projects and spurs entrepreneurship and innovation in the decades to come.

There was a renewed emphasis on fostering innovation ties between Canada and India. There is an immense demand and enormous potential for innovative solutions whether in agriculture, food processing, skills development, financial technology, transportation, health sectors, clean tech, and aerospace. Canada has a long tradition of finding these innovative solutions, and is ideally suited to filling this demand from India.

In conclusion, Canada is, has been, and always will be a nation that depends on international trade and investment to prosper. Trade and investment are critical to Canada's prosperity, fuelling economic growth, supporting good jobs at home, raising living standards, and helping Canadians provide for their families with affordable goods and services.

As Canada challenges itself to retain and advance its place among the world's most progressive, innovative trading nations, the strength that comes from collaboration cannot be overstated. This government has invested billions of dollars in helping Canadian workers and innovative businesses become world leaders in their fields.

We have also recently agreed to sign a trade agreement with Pacific rim countries through the comprehensive progressive agreement on the trans-Pacific partnership. This, in addition to the implementation of our agreement with the European Union, will generate thousands if not tens of thousands of new jobs for middle-class Canadians.

Canada now has preferential market access through 12 trade agreements to 45 countries, with over 1.2 billion consumers and a combined GDP of $41.5 trillion. This represents over one-half of the world's output of goods and services, and demonstrates the critical importance of pursuing, with renewed vigour and negotiations, trade and investment agreements, especially with countries such as India.

As reinforced by the success of our expanding economic and commercial relationship with India, Canada is quickly becoming the bridge between Asia and the rest of the world, one that will offer business unprecedented access to new market opportunities. Now is the time to increase our global investment and partnerships, and make the most of this opportunity.

Trade keeps our economy open, dynamic, and competitive, and helps ensure that Canada continues to be the best place in the world to do business. We must emphasize to the world that Canada remains open for business, and is committed to expanding international trade and investment. India is and will remain a very significant part of that commitment.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, nobody is questioning the interest in India-Canadian relations, and the potential that exists. The basis of the debate today, and why we are here, is because of the Prime Minister's attempt, and the attempt of his office, to use the national security adviser to inform the media that somehow the Jaspal Atwal affair was a rogue conspiracy within the Indian government to make the Prime Minister's trip look bad. That is the basis. It is not about the infomercial that the hon. member just mentioned.

Does the hon. member believe the media is more privileged to receive information than members of this Parliament? That is the basis of what we are talking about today. It is to have the national security adviser appear before the public safety committee, and answer the questions with the same answers he gave to the media. Does he believe that parliamentarians have that same privilege?

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as has been stated numerous times, the invitation should never have been sent, and as soon as it came to light, it was rescinded.

However, the member noted that nobody is challenging the importance of our business relationship. Therefore, the question should be asked, how is this debate benefiting that business relationship? Should we not be spending more time and effort in our committee on international trade, looking at some of the results of the trip in regard to the meetings with business leaders in various sectors?

As was noted, India is not just the most populace of countries, it is also one of the fastest growing economies. What an incredible opportunity to focus in on; for instance, those 124,000 students from India studying in Canada, building strong good relationships between our two countries in the business sector on a human level. This will serve us well for generations to come. Those debates are the ones that should be taking place. They will bring benefits to both India and Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on what my colleague referenced.

If we take a look at the trade and commerce between Canada and India, it is roughly about $8 billion today. Here we have hundreds of millions of dollars that have been added, in good part, because of the trip that was made by the Prime Minister.

However, when we take a look at the last couple of years, we have seen significant increases in that trade. I would ultimately argue that the potential is truly amazing if we can enhance that relationship and continue to grow it between the two countries. The biggest benefactor will be Canada's middle class, and those who want to be a part of it, and even the middle class in India. I would ask my colleague to comment on that.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely correct. When one is the government, there is an obligation to do what is best for the Canadian people. In this case, it is having a debate about the opportunities the Indian market affords Canadian investors and the opportunities for India to trade with Canada. Let us also not forget the fact that we have much in common. Although India is a world away, literally, both countries are democracies with vibrant, multicultural societies. We have values we share.

Our government has been focused on trade, whether it is a free trade agreement in the Asia–Pacific region or with Europe, which brings real, concrete results. It would really be a hope that instead of partisan debates that will not benefit Canadians in any manner whatsoever we could focus on those things that will produce good jobs for middle-class Canadians, currently and for generations to come.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the previous question and the answer were completely irrelevant to the motion, but I will indulge the member a bit in this area of the trade relationship. Given that the only tangible and immediate reaction on the trade relationship was an increase in the tariff on pulse products exported from Canada to India, from 40% to 60%, does the member think that this trip, which caused international headlines and embarrassment for Canada, was a success?

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, in fact, there is a lot we can point to. There was $1 billion in investments in bilateral trade between our two countries. Even more important are those hundreds of relationships that were established. There were four ministers and 16 MPs. We had a whole team meeting with business leaders and political leaders establishing those relationships. How do they put a value on all that hard work, which was laying the foundation for economic relations going forward? Headlines come and go, but these established relationships will lead to increased trade between our two countries, and our country is dependent on trade.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the size of Canada's Indo-Canadian community is well over a million people. There are literally thousands of connections.

I had the good fortune of being down there. I covered my costs. I spent most of my time in the Punjab. While I was in the Punjab, it was truly amazing the number of Canadians I met there, whether it was for commerce, tourism, or homes. The Indo-Canadian community provides a strategic link to encourage and promote additional potential trade, tourism, and so many other wonderful things. In fact, what we should be debating today is all the potential between Canada and India.

The issue the opposition has brought forward is fairly clear and very straightforward. It has been answered. It would have been far better to talk about that relationship, to talk about the sense of pride within Canada in our Indo-Canadian community and the true value of that trip, which will reap many dividends into the future.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely correct, and I am glad that the member raised the issue of the very special relationship we have between India and Canada based on the 1.4 million people of Indian descent who live in Canada. Perhaps this is an opportune point to also express gratitude to the Sikh community for all the contributions Sikhs have made over a century to the respectful, multicultural Canada we have.

When we travel and people around the world see that reflection of Canada, especially in a country that is as multicultural as India is, it makes it that much easier to say that Canada is a welcoming place. We are a welcoming place in terms of people and in terms of students. This is a place where they can invest and do business.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time today.

I want to talk about how the diplomatic corps relies on our government to protect it and to serve our best interests abroad. I am very proud to have been at Global Affairs Canada for close to a decade and a half. I served as deputy head of mission, not once but twice, in fact, so I have a bit of experience in this. I am very proud to have been the chargé d'affaires in El Salvador for two years, at our embassy in San Salvador, as well our deputy consul general in Dallas, Texas. I am very proud to have had this experience.

The golden rule of diplomacy is one thing and one thing only, and that is to do what one's government asks one to do. That is what one is there to do: what one's government asks one to do. This is in fact a fundamental part of our training in foreign affairs in the diplomatic corps. Humility is a very big part of this. I will give two examples.

The first one is when I was receiving my accreditation in El Salvador. This was very exciting for me. A motorcade took me through the streets of San Salvador to the presidential palace. I went up the stairs of the presidential palace, and I took my place beside the ambassador to be accredited. The presidential aide came to me and put his hand on my shoulder and said, “No, always behind the ambassador.” That was a lesson in humility, the humility that diplomats face in serving their nations.

The second example was when I was negotiating the CA4 trade agreement. This was something that was very important for its impact on Canada in terms of pork prices and sugar prices. I prepared very hard for this. I took my communication from the classified computer at the time. I prepared my notes, and I went to visit the minister of trade. I approached the minister of trade. I showed up in my navy suit. I was there prepared to represent Canada as a proud and humble diplomat.

Frankly, the minister of trade took my papers and looked at me like I was a school girl, and she said, “You tell your government we will get back to them in two weeks.” Again, it was a reminder of my role as a diplomat for the Government of Canada. I was simply there to serve a function. I was only there doing what my government asked me to do. Nothing more, nothing less.

The peril in this as a diplomat is that, unfortunately, diplomats must wear what their masters give them. This is not always good. Sometimes it can be a trick. Diplomats can be so excited when they understand that a minister is coming to visit. They prepare the best hotel and the best restaurants. They make sure that they know the linens the minister likes. They make sure that they know their favourite foods. They do all of this, and then all of a sudden, it can be cancelled. It can be cancelled because of the changing priorities of the government. This is possible. I saw this in my diplomatic work in Argentina as well, during the Chrétien era. This is throughout government, indeed.

Diplomats must wear what the government gives them to wear. Sometimes it is a cancelled trip. Sometimes it is something much worse. This was the case in the Atwal mission at the event in India. This was something much worse.

Are members aware of the mission process to compile a guest list for a mission event? It is a complicated process. It is not something that happens lightly, where diplomats just sit down and make a list of their friends and the people they like. All areas of the mission come together to compile this list. That is what they do. Once the list is compiled, it is sent to Ottawa. It is sent to Ottawa for a complete and utter vetting. The geographical desk will go through the list and see if there is anything that could potentially be a threat or an embarrassment to the Government of Canada. After the geographical desk, it will be sent to security. Security should and will vet the list to see if there is anyone or anything that could embarrass the people of Canada, the reputation of Canada.

Is it possible that our professionals at Global Affairs Canada and in our security agencies could have possibly found out this information about Mr. Atwal prior to this event? I think it is very possible. If so, why would the Prime Minister's Office, which certainly would have been made aware of the attendees at the event, not do anything in an effort to stop this terrorist from showing up at this event? Were they aware that this was happening, and if so, why did they not stop it?

Unfortunately, this has left an absolute, horrible outcome for the Government of Canada, for the public service, and for diplomats all around the world, and this is why.

First of all, there is the absolute embarrassment of knowing that a terrorist is an official guest at an event at which the Government of Canada is present. As a diplomat, I could not handle the shame. It would just be too much.

Second, I would be wondering what the other guests at the event thought about a terrorist being at the event. Would any of these guests go to future events of the Government of Canada and the missions of Canada? I am not certain that they would if they would be in the company of terrorists. This is something they would definitely be hesitant to do.

Also, this would impact the reputation of diplomats in the foreign service and among their colleagues. Diplomats would wonder if their colleagues thought they were the ones who had this terrible lapse in judgment and invited a terrorist to an event at which Canada was present. We talk in the foreign service about the actions of our colleagues and what they are doing.

What are the diplomatic impacts of this? Will we be able to get meetings with local ministers? What are the trade impacts this will have? What are the consular impacts because we had a terrorist at our event? It was a complete diplomatic embarrassment for our public service, for the diplomatic corps, and for Canada. How this mistake will affect mission contacts is a very important question.

The government has talked all week in question period about how it supports our public service and stands up for it. This incident sure made it a lot harder for diplomats to do their jobs because of the lack of credibility and oversight. Why would a government that says it supports its public service, that says it supports its diplomatic corps, allow an error like this to happen? That is not a government that supports its public service and its diplomatic corps.

How will this affect Canada on the world stage? Other nations will be looking at this in regard to trade decisions, consular decisions, and interactions with Canada. This is a diplomatic tragedy.

I should also say that it affects how diplomats feel about their country and how they feel about the government. Great leaders will always take responsibility, and the Prime Minister and the government did not take responsibility, and in doing so, failed their diplomatic corps. I cannot imagine the conversations in the corridors in New Delhi. I am certainly glad I am not posted there right now.

In closing, as a former diplomat, I know that diplomats put their trust in elected officials to guide them and to protect them, and the government failed. The government did not guide its diplomats and its public service. It did not protect its diplomatic corps. It did not protect the people at the mission in New Delhi.

That is all diplomats ever do. They do what a government asks them to do.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I think we have been fairly clear on this issue all morning and going into the afternoon. There was a mistake that occurred. An invitation was sent out. The moment that was discovered the invitation was rescinded, so the individual did not go to the event. It was a simple mistake that was made.

It is interesting that my colleague across the way made reference to the fact that we are also there to protect our civil servants. What the opposition Conservative Party, in co-operation with the New Democrats, are doing is not protecting the interests of civil servants with this particular motion. What are we to expect? Tomorrow, is it going to be a different civil servant, and then two weeks from now another one, because those members have some issues with which they do not necessarily agree with the minister? One either has confidence and believes in the professionalism of our civil servants, as we do, or not, and we move forward.

Today's debate should have been about the many wonderful things that the relationship between India and Canada is today. We should be reflecting on our Indo-Canadian community and the ties between the two countries. A good example of that would be through education, where we have seen thousands of additional students coming to Canada, and so many other positive things.

Does the member not agree that it is time to start talking about the positive things between Canada and India?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I find that answer completely rich, because we would not be having this opposition day motion if the government had not failed in protecting its diplomatic corps and its interests in Canada. Shame on the government.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, personally, what frightens me the most about politics is the thought of ever putting my family in danger.

In this particular situation, Mr. Atwal was photographed with the Prime Minister's wife. If my children were ever anywhere near a terrorist or anyone convicted of terrorist acts, I would be furious and would move heaven and earth to find out why that individual was there. I would not back down until I got an answer.

In this case, we are told that it was a simple mistake, but I would describe it as a colossal mistake. It is entirely appropriate for us to be told how this could have happened. From a security standpoint, the Prime Minister's wife was put in close proximity to a convicted terrorist. This cannot be taken lightly. It makes perfect sense to me that the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security should look into what happened. To that end, the committee members want to speak with the most non-partisan person possible, someone who can give them the answers they are looking for.

What are the member's thoughts on that?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, of course, family is also very important to our party. Even if it was a mistake, it was a serious mistake that had severe consequences for Canada. I cannot accept that, nor can Canadians.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for explaining how it works when one is part of a foreign mission, but what the government did was use a senior public servant as a shield and as political damage control. I would like the member to comment on that. The crux of the motion today is the government's shameful conduct in doing so.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, sadly, diplomats only do what their government asks them to do, so they would take that, wear it, and respond in the best, most noble way possible, as they do for the public service of Canada, for not just the government, but the people of Canada.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to this important motion today. It is important because in my riding, like many rural ridings across Canada, trade is the lifeblood of our economy. Trade is facilitated by building strong interprovincial and business relations. When our Prime Minister creates diplomatic incidents, he undermines those relationships, and consequently, trade suffers. This point leads into my final comments, which will be about the disturbing actions of our Prime Minister, who seems content to throw the reputation of his own Liberal members, and members of our professional public service, under the bus to protect his own skin. These are not the actions of a leader. This is shameful behaviour.

It goes without saying that the Prime Minister's recent trip to India was a diplomatic disaster. This tour has undermined the confidence of the Indian government that Canada can be depended upon as both a trading partner and a trusted ally. The Prime Minister went to India with a trunk full of colourful costumes, ready to show off his dance moves, but he failed to do his number one job as Prime Minister: to advance Canada's interests.

Pulse farmers in my riding of Sturgeon River—Parkland and across Canada are suffering because the Liberal government failed to negotiate a deal on tariffs with India. Consequently, the prices for lentils have dropped significantly, and Canadian farmers are finding themselves increasingly shut out of global markets.

The increased tariffs on lentils announced after the Prime Minister's trip illustrates his complete inability to get the job done. Prices are down for lentils across Canada, and India, one of Canada's top export destinations, continues to slap new tariff and non-tariff barriers on our world-class products. I see the impact of this in my riding. Farmers, including members of my family, are losing out because the Liberal government has failed to deliver serious and meaningful action on this critical trade issue.

Furthermore, on the issue of fumigation, the Prime Minister failed to gain an exemption from the Indian government that would prevent the use of an environmentally destructive chemical on our crops, a fumigant that is not required in Canada. Why was our Minister of Agriculture not doing the hard negotiations in the backrooms while the Prime Minister and his taxpayer-funded entourage posed for selfies with extremists? Since the Liberals have failed to gain Canadian farmers access to the Indian market when it comes to lentils, how can they be depended upon to ensure that Canada's liquefied natural gas resources get to market?

The Indian economy is undergoing rapid reforms that will require the use of cleaner fuels in order to meet its climate change and economic growth goals. Currently, many impoverished families in India spend hours every day gathering biomass fuel that wreaks devastation on forests and burns even dirtier than coal. Biomass pollution harms the health of women and children. Canada has a solution, natural gas, or as we in Alberta call it, God's gas. Canada's environmentally responsible natural gas can provide the low-carbon intensity to power India's economic expansion. It will also provide the clean, reliable fuel that will ensure poor families have healthier air in their homes. India needs Canada's natural gas, but the government has failed to secure deals necessary to ensure that Canada and India can benefit from this mutual exchange.

Let us look at the record of this trip. The Prime Minister took 20 members of the Liberal Party on this taxpayer-funded junket and photo-op tour. What do they have to show for it? Supposedly, there is $1 billion in investment, but when looking closely, it becomes apparent that 75% of this investment involves Canada investing in India. Only a few short weeks later, the President of France announced 16 billion dollars' worth of deals with India and was even met at the airport by the Indian prime minister, not exactly a proud moment for Canada, as we struggle to attract foreign investment while this Liberal government relentlessly raises taxes and increases red tape.

What else did the Liberals achieve on this trip? Recent media reports paint a disturbing picture of the Prime Minister's entourage. A Liberal member of Parliament argued with security officials tasked with defending Canada's embassy so that he could cut in line and sneak a few friends into a party. They drank the bar dry of Crown Royal, and succeeded in angering Indian officials who patiently waited in line. This sort of Animal House behaviour belongs in a dorm room, not on international trips meant to highlight Canada's serious commitment to our relationship with India.

It appears that the priority of this vacation, I mean diplomatic visit, was for the Prime Minister to show off his fancy costumes and dance moves. His reckless disregard for Canada's international reputation and the security of the delegation resulted in a convicted terrorist being invited on the trip, a terrorist who was convicted of attempted murder against an Indian politician while on Canadian soil.

What kind of message does this send to our ally when we invite on our delegations those who have promoted extremism and violence against the state of India? I know Canadians would not take kindly to a foreign government inviting advocates of separation in Canada, least of all violent separation, and yet that is exactly what the Prime Minister has done.

To make matters worse, the Prime Minister failed to take responsibility for the actions of his team. Real leaders understand that they have command accountability for the actions of those under their leadership, but this Prime Minister has once again abdicated that personal responsibility. He laid the blame on everyone, from one of his own Liberal members to the supposed actions of the Indian government.

I can certainly understand why the Prime Minister is frustrated. I am sure he truly believes he is a far superior prime minister to Stephen Harper, yet globally the evidence continues to mount against him. That frustration does not excuse his conspiratorial accusations that somehow it is the Indian government that is responsible for this disastrous trip. Even if there is a shred of truth to the Prime Minister's outlandish claim, surely it would make the best diplomatic sense not to make this claim publicly.

Now we have an important ally accusing our Prime Minister of making baseless accusations. It is bad for India and it is bad for Canada, and yet the Prime Minister has recklessly gone ahead. It will take a new government to restore that trust.

It is apparent that the Prime Minister places priority on his own image and not the best interests of Canada. By parading his national security adviser in front of a select media audience, he has chosen to use the non-partisan professional civil service as a shield for his own incompetence. When parliamentarians and Canadians ask for the same privileges that the media received, the Prime Minister refuses to allow his national security adviser to have these claims tested before committee.

It is clear to me that the national security adviser has been used by the Prime Minister to deflect from his embarrassing failure, and that is one of the great shames of the government. Despite the Liberals' claims to support a non-partisan professional public service, they are all too ready to use and abuse public servants to advance their own partisan ends.

Just a few years ago, I had the opportunity to watch as Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi disembarked from his plane on the tarmac in Ottawa. This important visit from the leader of the world's second most populous nation and one of the fastest-growing economies in the world highlighted the respect held by India for Canada. A few years ago, the Liberal government declared that Canada is back, but now the Prime Minister of India could not even be bothered to meet with our Prime Minister when his plane landed.

The contrast is illuminating. Under our serious Conservative leadership, international leaders came to Canada and respected our prime minister. Under this incompetent Prime Minister, we have become the butt of international jokes, snubbed when visiting our most important allies. The only thing that will restore the trust for Canadians and for the Indian government will be a new government.